86 comments:

Brown seems to have the touch for the good sound bite that resonates with normal people. At this point, he seems to have a good future.

On the other hand, Palin also has a good touch, but she essentially been beaten (at least for now) by the liberals and their media friends, with some help from Palin herself.

As to Obama and the democrats, it appeares they have cast in stone their image of obsessing on health care while the economy burned. They really do seem to have such an emotional attachment to "health care reform" that they cannot see the damage they are doing to themselves politically -- very strange since politicians usually are pretty keen on doing what protects them first and foremost. I think a "repeal the bill" theme by republicans might work this fall, particularly since beyond arguments about the complicated details of the bill, it is premised upon two things that most people agree with: (1) democrats focused on health care when they should have focused on jobs; and (2) democrats arrogantly rammed through health care contrary to the wishes of the American people.

Bitter and destructive, yes. Endless, not so much. The only ray of hope (to say nothing of change) in all of this is that the House Dems have decided that, even more important than passing the HC bill, is getting past it. With luck, one way or another, it will be over in a week. And then we can all move on to the recriminations. Washington pols are really good at that part, since it costs nothing and requires little skill to play.

What an ridiculously biased article. Evidenly, some Democrats are preparing the "blame Brown" meme.

Brown himself can claim responsibility for the Democrats' failure to pass health overhaul legislation to date. They were on the verge of doing so before Brown claimed the late Edward M. Kennedy's Senate seat in a special election upset in January, depriving Democrats of their filibuster-proof supermajority and throwing the health care effort into limbo.

It has been gradually revived, and Democrats are now pushing for final passage before Easter under complex Senate rules that would allow them to sidestep a Republican filibuster.

Okay, so what's the rest of the Mass delegation, all Democrats, saying?

The Democrats themselves are reacting to exactly what Brown said in his response, “When the people of my state elected me in January, they sent more than a senator to Washington – they sent a message. Across party lines, the voters told politicians in Washington to get its priorities right."

President Obama’s final push for health-care reform is being met with no immediate guarantees, even from Democratic House members in bluest state Massachusetts.

“I want to vote for health-care reform,” said U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville). “I think I can, but I’m not there yet”...

U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston) said, “The Senate bill is a terrible bill. They’ve stripped all the reform out of it. I have a very poor opinion of that bill. Very poor.”

U.S. Rep. James McGovern (D-Worcester) said the Senate bill does not do enough to contain health insurance costs for families and small businesses. He added he supports health-care reform, but wants to see the “finished product” before making up his mind.

Citing an area sign maker who told him health-care costs prevented him from hiring new staff, McGovern said, “We have to deal with these issues of affordability if we want to create jobs.”

All members of the Bay State delegation voted for the health-care legislation that passed the House in November.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton) said he opposes the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” to provide Nebraska with more aid and wants assurances a plan to tax health-care benefits will be amended.

Both Frank and U.S. Rep. John Tierney (D-Salem) are waiting to read the final proposal before making up their minds.

U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Malden) said he wants to review the plan to make sure it “benefits residents of our state and protects Massachusetts’ interest in getting our fair share of federal funding for expanded coverage.”

U.S. Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) said in a statment she will support the bill if it lowers health-care costs for families and small businesses, ends discriminatory insurance practices and expands coverage to uninsured Americans “in need of care.” She said she’s also working with colleagues to make sure Massachusetts isn’t penalized for being the first state to provide universal health-care coverage.

Scott Brown, sound bites do not a career make. There must be substance behind those sound bites. I suspect that there is nothing there and he is just a flash in the pan, sound bite republican. People, find someone of substance to run or you will be as big a loser in November 2012 as you will be in November 2010.

"Look folks, there's no mystery here. Barack Obama is stupid. That is why he persists. He believes that he is winning. He thinks if this bill passes and he signs it that he won."

He's not dumb, he's praticing Alinsky to the T. Claiming Moral superiority. Using the argument of the opposition against them ("you have socialism now w/ medicare don't you?"). Isolate and polarize the target (health insurance companies), Keep up the pressure. He means to crash this economy (in February the US had the highest monthly deficit ever, it took in $100 Billion and spent$300 Billion). How else to you get we the people to accept socialism, but to make them desperate? This is his plan. Do you think a dumb man could Usurp the Presidency? (his father was never a US Citizen, thus he is not a Natural Born Citizen). Do you think a dumb man could hide every scrap of his past except the story of it he wants to tell, and Usurp the Presidency?

Victoria...There is no Health Care Reform bill now anyway. There is only a skeleton upon which future organs and flesh could be hung, but the Frankenstein monster that is on the table awaiting life is opposed by everyone, except the Hope and Change brigade that says "Save Obama's Presidency" no matter what the cost to the citizens. That is pure power politics seeking only to raise the Presidency to a divine right Kingdom of Obama I and his Barons. So Brown's easy common sense approach that refuses to be enchanted by a King's poison is the obstacle that will keep this Frankinstein dead. Let's Celebrate.

Not endless. If Pelosi Galore is really serious about this insane Slaughter Rule, it will go to SCOTUS, which The Messiah has chosen to Alinskyize, and it will be thrown out.

And the Democrat Party will spend a long time in the wilderness because they tried to circumvent the whole idea of the US Constitution (yeah, I know they do that a lot, but nowhere near so blatantly).

Fred4Pres said...

Insanity or malice?

What are the Democratic leadership thinking?

They're not. If they were, they'd have focused on real jobs to help business get back on its feet (agree with KC). What you have are a group of small c communists who are doing what they've been doing all their (and I use the word loosely) adult lives. Unfortunately, they're in charge without any adults to rein them in and they don't have any real ideas beyond ideology and their own corruption.

victoria said...

Scott Brown, sound bites do not a career make. There must be substance behind those sound bites.

Worked swell for The Zero - up to now.

PS That direct address thing went out with Madonna's pointy brassiere tour.

Victoria...I see your point. I comment from a beliefe in the great men theory of History. That is, men are selected in their mother's wombs for certain great acts for which they are trained over a hard lifetime , and are called upon to perform...maybe once for a short season ...and then that man resumes being just another weak guy. History is full of that.... A familiar example was from August 3 1944 until December 26 1944 when a single imperfect man was put into a leadership position to destroy the Nazi's 1000 year Reich quickly, and then he was not needed anymore. You don't have to believe that, but I do.

The new thing is, they really don't even have to VOTE on it - not only do they not have to read it - they don't even have to vote, it will just PASS, like magic. By decree.

No democracy, no discussion - remember "the debate is over"?

As I have said, once we elect them, there is really no reason for them to even go to work. They can go sit in a jacuzzi somewhere sipping Mai Tai's - we can fill in their "votes" simply by party affiliation.

Why waste money on Congressional and Senate offices? Why pay for all that support staff? Why pay for their travel to and from DC?

Hey Kara Dioguardi's father is going to get the Republican nomination to run for Senator against Schumer's butt girl Hilldegard or whatever her name is. And he has a shot to win in this bluest of states.

That is going to continue the trend that all politicians who want to be sucessful will need a connection to American Idol.

You make reasonable points. But I think this bill is different than any other bill. Never has someone ever passed such an unpopular and important bill over so much objection. Passing this bill will ruin all trust in the Democrats for a decade or more. As we say in the Brown race, it won't just cause Democrats to lose the trust of the country for a decade or more. 2012 won't be 1994 it will be 1932. Never has a party been seen as so out of touch and so contempuous of the public will. You have to go back to Hoover to find something like that.

If it were normal economic times, I would agree with you. But these are not normal times. The Democrats are risking being seen as the party who don't care about the worst economic crisis in 70 years. That will be no normal loss of seats. That will be the loss of a generation or more.

Shields: “You, ah… if you're a Great Leader [TM], you take them up to the top of the mountain, and you tell them what they're going to do, and how America is going to be a better place. And how if we don't do it, costs are not going to be contained, and fewer and fewer people are going to have health insurance, and it's going to be priced out — there's going to be children that get sick and die without coverage. I mean you've gotta, at some point….”

Lehrer: “A ‘Profile in Courage,’ ah, sermon….”

Shields: “You've got at some point, yeah, to be able to do that. And then, about that brother-in-law of yours that doesn't have a job, he may be an assistant in the Small Business Administration in Duluth….”

Brooks: “Somebody's already imagining becoming a federal judge out of this brother….”

Know what this reminds me of a little bit? The regretful tale of King Akhenaten, that's what.

Changed his name from Amenhotep (IV), the name change signifying a switch in deity-association. It was a good idea, the impulse to consolidate the polytheistic panoply into one god. It is after all a worthy and significant and ineluctable step in man's comprehension of deity. But Akhenaten's compulsion amounted to worshiping one of the gods by ignoring all the others, each associated to varying degrees by various kingdom cities. Each with their own priesthood, each contributing their own economies. Moving the capitol to a spanking new city built for the purpose of realigning the whole nation at once to one god alienated and disrupted the entire system of priesthoods wherein resided all political and economic power of the nation.

Ever see those necklaces that are made of what appears to be strands of stacked coins? Pounds of gold. You cannot just go throwing around shebyu collars, bestowing awards of pounds of gold that are intended to award feats of valor, upon your friends for non-heroic deeds just because they're temporarily useful to you, and do this for long without consequence. Akhenaten focused all his attention and kingly energy on his one God, his one city, his one obsession, and the whole rest of the country could just go to hell.

The kingdom shrank. Even the art became weird. That's what all that whole Tel El Amarna period weirdness is about with their exaggerated pot-bellies and elongated craniums and exaggerated jaws. The whole royal family is made to look mongs, like aliens. Appalling.

They killed him. The priests, the military, whoever it was they let this obsession go so far, then POW! They offed him just like that and put an end to the nonsense. His son was Nebkheperure Tutankhamen, Tut. Originally that last part was Tutankhamen the change signifying a switch back to tradition. The art reflects this return to traditional values, most notably the art in Tut's own tomb. The priests brought the boy back to Thebes and used him to restore tradition. After all that, apparently, and this is pure conjecture, the boy pissed off somebody so thoroughly it compelled them to kill him too. Probably Ay, the visor, but possibly Horemheb, the king's deputy, an important military general responsible for the protection/expansion of Egypt's borders, veteran of wars, in short, people that brook no trifling by a young punk arrogant little twat of a king.

[Records of this period show that after his death, Tut's wife, Ankhesenamum, pleaded with the Hittites to send her a prince for her to marry. “Never shall I pick out a servant of mine and make him my husband. I am afraid!” The servant was most likely Ay. The Hittites did send a prince. He was murdered on his way to Egypt. Ay did marry Ankhesenamum, took the throne, then perished, whereupon Horemheb was elevated to the throne, and persisted in returning the kingdom to tradition. Egyptologists disagree on all this, of course, and new CT scans show Tut had a broken leg. But this is my opinion and for now I'm stick'n with it.]

The Democrats are risking being seen as the party who don't care about the worst economic crisis in 70 years. That will be no normal loss of seats. That will be the loss of a generation or more.

Or it may not be. We'll see in November and there already are rumblings about whether Republicans may have peaked early in this cycle. And as the saying goes, Fortune favors the bold.

Another Lefty whistling in the graveyard. If unemployment doesn't get substantially better (and there's nothing that says it will), it doesn't matter about who's rumbling what. People are going to vote anti-Democrat and, if one of the antis actually has something to say (Chris Christie, Scott Brown), so much the better.

And the saying is, fortune favors the brave, neither of which the Demos have been about this. If they had, it would have been passed by their much-vaunted supermajorities.

The current exercise in Stalinism is going to be the last straw for a lot of people who otherwise might have cut them a soupcon of slack. The true nature of The Zero and his crowd, along with Pelosi Galore, Dingy Harry, and the rest in Congress seem to be turning people off in a big way.

If that's true, then Republicans have nothing to worry about. However, I suspect a lot of this sudden concern from Republicans about Democratic electoral chances comes from something else. Namely, the possibility that HCR, once passed, will become popular over time and will become one of the untouchable middle-class entitlements. And in the short run, GOP congressional gains (which are largely inevitable in a midterm election) may be blunted by (i) gerrymandering, (ii) support for HCR among the Democratic base (which is helpful for item (i)) and (iii) if the economy is seen as being in an improvement arc in November, a lot of the anti-incumbency fever will dissipate. High risk, yes, but also possibly high reward.

"I comment from a belief in the great men theory of History. That is, men are selected in their mother's wombs for certain great acts for which they are trained over a hard lifetime , and are called upon to perform...maybe once for a short season ...and then that man resumes being just another weak guy. History is full of that.... A familiar example was from August 3 1944 until December 26 1944 when a single imperfect man was put into a leadership position to destroy the Nazi's 1000 year Reich quickly, and then he was not needed anymore."

I find this interesting, but I don't know who the 1944 guy was (Patton?), and I would be interested in other examples. Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Washington? [You can tell I'm interested in the Civil War, the great calamity of American history that we were somehow able to survive).

As to the folks asserting President Obama is dumb, I don't see how you can listen to him answer questions and think that. My view is that he is reasonably smart, significantly more deceitful that the typical politician, and may well have hidden motives for changing our country far greater than he lets on. But it also may be that his political motives are just run of the mill liberal views and through incredible luck and timing he became president of the united states (more likely). I do think that the fact that since he left for college, he has been in such a sheltered affirmative action and now successful politician bubble that he has became extraordinarily arrogant.

"As to the folks asserting President Obama is dumb, I don't see how you can listen to him answer questions and think that."

That's because Obama isn't really answering the question. We've seen him try without his handlers. He's an idiot.

Here, watch this video that catches Obama's oratory once the teleprompter feeding him the words to say is turned off.

Watch his left hand when he starts stumbling for words. He points twice with both fingers of his left hand to his eyes to alert his handlers off-stage that the teleprompter has failed and he can't figure out what to say next.

KC, you're only seeing the Obama the media will show you. They won't let him anywhere near real people who might ask him real questions, or give a speech without his teleprompter. Or put him in an audience not stuffed with his SEIU thugs and other union pals.

If that's true, then Republicans have nothing to worry about. However, I suspect a lot of this sudden concern from Republicans about Democratic electoral chances comes from something else. Namely, the possibility that HCR, once passed, will become popular over time and will become one of the untouchable middle-class entitlements. And in the short run, GOP congressional gains (which are largely inevitable in a midterm election) may be blunted by (i) gerrymandering, (ii) support for HCR among the Democratic base (which is helpful for item (i)) and (iii) if the economy is seen as being in an improvement arc in November, a lot of the anti-incumbency fever will dissipate. High risk, yes, but also possibly high reward.

Ah, yes, the Tom Harkin theory, "Once this is passed and people see how swell it is, they'll love us". Given that benefits don't kick in for several years after taxes go through the roof (probably along with inflation), that's treading on very thin ice. That's right up there with Pelosi Galore's brilliant, "We have to pass this to see what's in it".

"Untouchable middle class entitlements", you say? Most entitlements end up being for the welfare class, not the people who make jobs and make the good money, that's why the middle class has Roth IRAs and 401(k)s The middle class will be bled white paying for it. And, in the end, service will probably be worse than Canada or Britain.

As for gerrymandering, abetted by Barry ACORN census, that's probably the only way the Demos keep a grip on Congressional power. In any case, challenges to the courts over this census will give Ann and Glenn Reynolds job security talking about them into the next century.

Support for BambiCare is almost as weak in the Democrat base as it is in the rest of the body politic, that's why there's a lot of talk about is Barry losing his base.

And the economy is not improving, except for Goldman Sachs ever since they opened a branch in the West Wing. If people like Nouriel Roubini and Peter Schiff are right, you can expect another September Swoon this fall. In any case, the Demos have done nothing to help job creation in the private sector; the stimulus is a mess and the U-6 is stuck around 17%, to the point that people are no longer talking as much about a W-shaped recession as they are about a U or L-shaped one.

Stupid risk and no reward for years, if ever. Pull your head out of the DNC talking points and try a little reality.

"I comment from a belief in the great men theory of History. That is, men are selected in their mother's wombs for certain great acts for which they are trained over a hard lifetime , and are called upon to perform...maybe once for a short season ...and then that man resumes being just another weak guy. History is full of that.... A familiar example was from August 3 1944 until December 26 1944 when a single imperfect man was put into a leadership position to destroy the Nazi's 1000 year Reich quickly, and then he was not needed anymore."

I find this interesting, but I don't know who the 1944 guy was (Patton?), and I would be interested in other examples. Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Washington? [You can tell I'm interested in the Civil War, the great calamity of American history that we were somehow able to survive).

Have to agree with KC, tg. If you mean Georgie Patton in your WWII example, he did not save the day alone. Omar Bradley and Courtney Hodges handled First Army extremely well, as well as Simpson and Patch, who brought Ninth and Seventh Armies along on Ike's broad front. Georgie was far from a one man band.

The same can be said for Kreuger and Eichelberger who commanded MacArthur's armies in the Pacific, along with Halsey, who ran the Solomons campaign under MacArthur's direction. George Marshall was the great winnower of officers in WWII, so you might as well use him as much as any theory of history.

Have to say that I think Sheridan walked very much in the path Sherman blazed and that Grant had sense enough to see that Cump was probably a true genius in war. Sheridan, either in the Civil War, or later in the Indian Wars, especially, never really measured up to Sherman's standard. He was a solid practitioner, but not the "great man"

Our service academies, particularly West Point, have done a good job of turning out officers who were capable of handling tough challenges ever since the Mexican War, but you can find plenty of examples of broken reeds among its graduates. If the good people are there and the times demand them, sometimes they rise to the top. As with Hannibal, sometimes they are brought down by their own as much as the enemy.

"...from August 3 1944 until December 26 1944 when a single imperfect man was put into a leadership position to destroy the Nazi's 100 year Reich quickly..."

"Take these five gallon gasoline cans to Montgomery with this message: 'Although I am sadly short of gasoline myself, I know of your admiration for our equipment and supplies and I can spare you the five gallons. It will be more than enough to take you as far as you probably will advance in the next two days.'"

The guy most responsible for the victory of the Allies in WWII was Adolph Hitler and he gets far too little credit for it. There should be a statue somewhere of him holding a gun to his own head, a symbol for doing the right thing. It did take him about 5 years too long though.

The guy most responsible for the victory of the Allies in WWII was Adolph Hitler and he gets far too little credit for it. There should be a statue somewhere of him holding a gun to his own head, a symbol for doing the right thing. It did take him about 5 years too long though.

Hitler's biggest mistake was invading the USSR. At that moment it was ordained how the war would end.

This is so much like AGW. If the problem is so massive and the "solution" is so simple, then why all the lying? You don't hide data that proves you right, and you don't "backdoor" legislation that is worthy of support.

Whatever they say from now on, we already know that their motives are evil. "HC reform" has no chance.

"This week will be the last stand for Obamacare, and the trickery that Speaker Pelosi is concocting to get the 2,700-page Senate bill through the House almost defies belief. It’s aptly called the “Slaughter Strategy,” after Rep. Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), who chairs the House Rules Committee.

Under this scheme, House members would vote on a bill of amendments to the despised Senate bill, and the Senate bill would be “deemed” to have passed if this companion bill is approved. This is supposed to inoculate House members, who could say they never actually voted for the Senate bill.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has the best line: Last year, the House was passing bills without reading them. This year, they’re passing bills without voting on them.

If you pull out your copy of the U.S. Constitution, you will find that in Article 1, Section 7, it clearly states that the House and Senate have to pass a bill before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

The Senate bill is the only realistic vehicle for passage of Obamacare, but so many House members hate various provisions in it that Pelosi can’t round up the necessary 216 votes unless there are major changes. Undecided members say they will buy into the Slaughter Strategy only if they get a guarantee that the Senate will absolutely, positively pass a second health-care reform bill that makes the original Senate bill more to their liking by getting rid of things like the Cornhusker Kickback. (The Louisiana Purchase, apparently, will stay in.)"

"Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.

"It would be government by fiat… meaning there would be no law.

"The mere discussion of it by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us… at the brink. At the brink."

"This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution’s words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny."

If this Congress does this, there won't be any turning back. There won't be a way to undo it. There won't be any need for a Congress any longer.

It will be the darkest day in the history of the United States and effectively, the day our Constitution is no longer functional.

If you liberals think you're going to get away with this, you're sadly fucking mistaken.

Everything about your lives will be changed forever. You will not enjoy the fruits of this. Everything you enjoy about America will be gone. Forever. For you, and for your children. Nothing will be the same ever again.

It's all about the "fight" now. We will have winners and losers, and lots of blood.

In the meantime, none of the problems that led us here will be resolved.

Medicare and Medicaid will still be debt pits. Our businesses will need to pass on more and more of the rising health insurance costs to their employees, and our goods and services will reflect these uncontrolled costs, making us less and less competitive in the world marketplace.

Not so. The differences are real, fundamental and dire. If the Dems "win" it's not just a political victory, it's the end of a way of life. If the Repubs "win", then our best-in-the-world system continues to survive and improve.

War hero generals are an interesting subject because they are in situations where normally there is a winner and a loser and, therefore, one side will wind up looking good and probably better than they deserve. It is somewhat like lawyers in a trial and politicians (and especially their consultants) in elections, where even more clearly there is a winner considered a great practicioner and a loser considered incompetent.

In WWII, I agree Hitler's mistakes probably did make an Allied victory either inevitable or close to it.

"Trooper York said... That's only one meaning. It also refers to a drunken evening when Bill Clinton pushed Greg Norman down the stairs and jumped over him to get at Chris Evert.

Everybody knows that"

1. Memo to Bill Clinton. Never try matching an Aussie drink for drink. They are genetic supermen. The product of dumping all the UK's drunks, rummies, alcoholic wastrels in a prison colony where the 1st two freestanding buildings they erected besides the prison were a port warehouse to get booze in through, and a beer brewery.Over two hundred years, in a Darwinian struggle, the strongest livers prevailed amidst men that consider a bottle of Shiraz a good breakfast. Something to bide them over until the serious drinking starts later in the day. And for the Sheilas, that passed their genes along on the premise that a man crawling drunk who still managed to water the sheep was a real keeper.

2. Bill Clinton was the one that ended up in the hospital with a wrenched knee. Besides never trying to match an Aussie drink for drink, never mess with an Aussie ten years younger than you that was also a top rugby player and surfer while you were chowing down hushpuppies as a Yale Law grad and asst DA desk jockey.

3. It was Norman's pre-Evert Flight Attendent wife Bill got fresh with. As was so often the case with Bubba, he was quickly forgiven. "Can't blame the mate for it! Have you seen Hillary?? Brrrrrr!"

4. It was large-breasted tennis vixen Evert that "jumped the Shark", ending his 25-year marriage.

Who are the wavering House Democrats more afraid of, Obama and Pelosi or the voters in their district?

I bet they are more afraid of Obama and Pelosi. And with good reason. Every stop is being pulled. (Stepak on being offered a job: "No comment.")

The Congresscritters do not respect the voters. They will vote with Obama and Pelosi, and the bill will pass by a margin of 2-3 votes. (Pelosi has more votes up her skirt, but she will let some go as a favor.)

Then, in November, we will find out if the calculus of fear was correct?

Here's something I wonder about: anyone who is smart enough to become a doctor could choose to go into something else, like law. Will students be reluctant to study medicine and come out of school $100,000 in debt only to go into a field that in which the government wants to control wages and prices? To put this squeeze on doctors without enacting any tort reform to reduce what they have to pay for malpractice insurance seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. Are we going to limit the income of doctors, while allowing malpractice lawyers to continue to feast on them? I guess if we discourage people from going into medicine and instead encourage them to go into law, the problem will solve itself: no host for the parasites to feed on.

Alex...It is tempting to see a victory goes to the biggest force engaged. But that does not happen all the time. It is the leadership's intelligence, experience and weaponry savy that turns a crucial battle from a defeat into a total win. This was true for Spruance at Midway and Eidson at Guadalcanal. Without those two men acting as they did, the Japanese would be ruling half of the world today. Rverybody wants the credit for a victory, but these two men did it.

The Russians pulled out a couple of hat tricks that Hitler wasn't counting on:

1.) In an incredible feat of industrial organization, the Soviets managed to relocate the bulk of their heavy industry east of the Ural mountains. Even had Hitler managed to seize Moscow, he still would have had a problem.

2.) The T-34 tank. Manufactured by the gazillion.

That, and Russian toughness and willingness to sacrifice for the Motherland was just unbelievable.

"The Russians pulled out a couple of hat tricks that Hitler wasn't counting on:"

The Russians also benefited from Hitler being insane. Hitler didn't listen to his generals and fall back and regourp before the winter of 1941. That would have saved him a diasterous defeat before Moscow. The German Army could have resumed the offensive the following spring in much better condition and probably finished the job.

Hitler also wouldn't listen to Manstein in the fall of 1942 to let Paulus break out of Stalingrad. This caused an entire German Army and over 100,000 first rate troops to be lost. Add in that 100,000 and the rest of the war looks entirely different. Russia didn't win the war so much as Hitler lost it.

Even had Hitler allowed von Paulus to stage a breakout of Stalingrad in time, and even with a 'regrouping' prior to the first winter, I don't think Germany could have held the ground they took. There were just too many flanks for the Russians to hit, too broad a front to defend against Russian counterattack, and the supply lines were just too long.

There was no chance that the Russian government would change hands, as it did in 1917. the Wehrmacht would have had to fight its way across the Urals to knock Russian industry out of the war. And the further east they got, the longer German lines of communication, and the shorter the Russian lines of communication.

The German Army, no matter how well led it was, just didn't have enough mass.

Eventually the weight of the Red Army would have crushed it - no matter whether Hitler was micromanaging his generals or not.